Virginia: Drinking at an "Establishment" while open carrying: Legal?

[MagiK_SacK]

And it is no more valid an argument than the employer (like mine) who states that he doesn't want an employee to bring a gun to the workplace because it would make someone uncomfortable or that person might use it if they get angry at someone.

To which I contend that nothing would stop that person from going home and retrieving a weapon and bringing it back to the workplace to incite or enact violence. If someone is going to commit battery, malicious assault, assault with a deadly weapon and/or murder, then a policy of "comfort" does nothing to stop them.

You do what's good for you and I'll do what's good for me. I'll leave you alone until you bother me and you leave me alone until I bother you.

That's the way it SHOULD BE and the way it would be... if only. And hopefully EVERYONE here know what I mean by "if only".

^^^ What he said...

 

[The Wolfhound]

2 worries...

First worry is percetion of the OCer. Second worry is that while there is a definite standard applied to DUI, there is no standard for CUI (Carrying Under the Influence). As mentioned previously ANY consumption can be used as "Under the Influence" when firearms are concerned. If everyone behaved like a responcible adult at all times it would never be an issue. To be clear, an adult beverage with dinner does not evidence irresponcible behavior in my opinion, but can be perceived differently by others. Since my personal alcohol consumption is measured in ounces per decade, it does not come up.

 

[MagiK_SacK]

/snip/ Second worry is that while there is a definite standard applied to DUI, there is no standard for CUI (Carrying Under the Influence). As mentioned previously ANY consumption can be used as "Under the Influence" when firearms are concerned. /snip/

That thought process is flawed though. You can just as easily take somebodies life with a car. Even though the primary purpose of a vehicle is for driving, it is just as easily used as a weapon. So why would/should a firearm be any different?

 

[Tanner]

I say the entire thought process is flawed. In my OPINION .01 is under the influence. Its best to leave the safety sinsitive stuff alone when consuming anything. However I drive for a living so I am kinda bias on this subject. I have seen one to many accidents with headless courpses on the side of the road. Which goes withouts saying that they may not have been booz related.

 

[The Wolfhound]

You missed my point

There is a legislated standard of proving Under the Influence for Driving. There is not a similar one for Carrying. Please reference cites earlier in the thread. As there is no standard for Carrying, ANY consumption MAY be construed as Under the Influence. That is the trap I was pointing out. I did not find it, I merely repeated it.

 

[Grapeshot]

There is a legislated standard of proving Under the Influence for Driving. There is not a similar one for Carrying. Please reference sites earlier in the thread. As there is no standard for Carrying, ANY consumption MAY be construed as Under the Influence. That is the trap I was pointing out. I did not find it, I merely repeated it.

We don't shoot messengers here...........do we?

 

[The Wolfhound]

Sure felt like I was someone's target.

We don't shoot messengers here...........do we?

Not even a fleshwound though. It's all good.

 

[Tanner]

wolfhound I did understand your point. My point was that its a bad idea to drive or handle firearms with any kind of BAC period. But I also think people have the right to make that potential mistake. just making conversation I wasent attacking anyone.

 

[MagiK_SacK]

There is a legislated standard of proving Under the Influence for Driving. There is not a similar one for Carrying. Please reference cites earlier in the thread. As there is no standard for Carrying, ANY consumption MAY be construed as Under the Influence. That is the trap I was pointing out. I did not find it, I merely repeated it.

I didn't mean to for you to take it as an attack on you. I was merely stating how the thought of .01 could be considered Under the influence is unfair to gun owners. That is all.

 

[Tanner]

and I agree that is unfair. To make it fair the BAC for driving should also be .01

 

[The Wolfhound]

All is good.

It is unfair. No "ifs" "ands" or "buts" about it. Part of why I open carry is as an advocate for nomalization of the presence of a firearm. It is my hope that I present myself as a person of calm and rational demeanor who also just happens to have a firearm visibly carried upon them. I certainly try. In the interest of individual freedoms I have no issue with responcible carriers having an adult beverage. I just want to be sure that the double standard which will be applied is understood. From your last statments we are not in disagreement on the issue. Lets all go shooting!

 

[Tanner]

im going to fort lee on sunday. lets go!

 

[The Airframer]

It appears that we can all agree on the fact that it's legal to consume alcohol while carrying, but I never will. When the beer comes out, my gun gets put up. It seems that in the unlikely event that a justified use of lethal force were to present itself while I was intoxicated and I did pull the trigger, inevitably the police would find fault on my behalf because alcohol impairs judgement.

I may be able to convince a jury of the necessity of using lethal force while intoxicated, however, I would rather face that same judge/jury that knew I was sober when I pulled the trigger. If Zimmerman had even a beer before his encounter, he would've already been convicted. When I drink, my wife doesn't and she's a better shot than me--I'd swallow my pride and call in the reinforcements if trouble showed up while I was drinking.